3 ms·

Food is frivolous!? Good God the future is bleak.

dale_glass 9mo ago
Food isn't frivolous, meat arguably is if you're talking about efficiency. You've got to feed a cow for a year and half until it's slaughtered. That's a whole lot of input, for a cow's worth of meat output.
- ai_is_the_best 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dale_glass 9mo ago
    I've got my doubts, because current AI tech doesn't quite live in the real world. In the real world something like inventing a meat substitute is thorny problem that must be solved in meatspace, not in math. Anything from not squicking out the customers, to being practical and cheap to produce, to tasting good, to being safe to eat long term. I mean, maybe some day we'll have a comprehensive model of humans to the point that we can objectively describe the taste of a steak and then calculate whether a given mix and processing of various ingredients will taste close enough, but we're nowhere near that yet.
Marha01 9mo ago
Meat is not necessary.
- cons0le 9mo ago
  The only way to phase out meat is to make a replacement that actually tastes good. Come to the american south and ask them to try tempeh. They'll look at you like you asked them to eat roaches. It's a cultural thing.
  - DetectDefect 9mo ago
    Taste has nothing to do with it; 'tis is all based on economics and the actual way to stop meat consumption is to simply remove big-ag tax subsidies and other externalized costs of production which are not actually realized by the consumer. A burger would cost more than most can afford and the free market would take care of this problem without additional intervention. Unfortunately, we do not have a free market.
    - cons0le 9mo ago
      I would much rather lobby for ending ad gag laws, and fighting for better treatment of animals. I think its more realistic than getting people to give up meat entirely
      - DetectDefect 9mo ago
        You cannot treat a commodified individual "better" - it is only possible to euphemize such a logical fallacy.
        cons0le 9mo ago
        So there's no point in pushing for pasture raised, and it's either all or nothing ? I think incremental progress is possible. I think rolling back and gag laws would make a positive difference in animal welfare because people would be able to film and show how bad conditions are inside. I think that's worth pushing for. And it's more realistic than everyone stopping eating meat all at once.
        DetectDefect 9mo ago
        The economics of what you describe are impossible. The entire concept of an idyllic pasture is actual industry propaganda which is not based in objective reality.
        9mo ago
- sojournerc 9mo ago
  Comfortable clothes aren't necessary. Food with flavor isn't necessary... We should all just eat ground up crickets in beige cubicles because of how many unnecessary things we could get rid of. /s

Food isn't frivolous, meat arguably is if you're talking about efficiency. You've got to feed a cow for a year and half until it's slaughtered. That's a whole lot of input, for a cow's worth of meat output.

ai_is_the_best 9mo ago
[flagged]
- dale_glass 9mo ago
  I've got my doubts, because current AI tech doesn't quite live in the real world. In the real world something like inventing a meat substitute is thorny problem that must be solved in meatspace, not in math. Anything from not squicking out the customers, to being practical and cheap to produce, to tasting good, to being safe to eat long term. I mean, maybe some day we'll have a comprehensive model of humans to the point that we can objectively describe the taste of a steak and then calculate whether a given mix and processing of various ingredients will taste close enough, but we're nowhere near that yet.

Marha01 9mo ago

Meat is not necessary.

cons0le 9mo ago
The only way to phase out meat is to make a replacement that actually tastes good. Come to the american south and ask them to try tempeh. They'll look at you like you asked them to eat roaches. It's a cultural thing.
- DetectDefect 9mo ago
  Taste has nothing to do with it; 'tis is all based on economics and the actual way to stop meat consumption is to simply remove big-ag tax subsidies and other externalized costs of production which are not actually realized by the consumer. A burger would cost more than most can afford and the free market would take care of this problem without additional intervention. Unfortunately, we do not have a free market.
  - cons0le 9mo ago
    I would much rather lobby for ending ad gag laws, and fighting for better treatment of animals. I think its more realistic than getting people to give up meat entirely
    - DetectDefect 9mo ago
      You cannot treat a commodified individual "better" - it is only possible to euphemize such a logical fallacy.
      - cons0le 9mo ago
        So there's no point in pushing for pasture raised, and it's either all or nothing ? I think incremental progress is possible. I think rolling back and gag laws would make a positive difference in animal welfare because people would be able to film and show how bad conditions are inside. I think that's worth pushing for. And it's more realistic than everyone stopping eating meat all at once.
        DetectDefect 9mo ago
        The economics of what you describe are impossible. The entire concept of an idyllic pasture is actual industry propaganda which is not based in objective reality.
        9mo ago
sojournerc 9mo ago
Comfortable clothes aren't necessary. Food with flavor isn't necessary... We should all just eat ground up crickets in beige cubicles because of how many unnecessary things we could get rid of. /s